Erratum to: Head/skull injury potential of empty 0.5-l beer glass bottles vs. 0.33-l Coke bottles.

In the context of further impact tests with various striking weapons against the skull, it turned out that the manufacturer had incorrectly calibrated the force measuring plate, which was used in our earlier experiments. When the tests were carried out again under the same conditions, the measurement results were significantly higher.

Head/skull injury potential of empty 0.5-l beer glass bottles vs. 0.33-l Coke bottles.

The medical and biomechanical assessment of injuries from blows to the head is a common task in forensic medicine. In the context of a criminal justice process, the injury potential of different striking weapons is important. The article at hand compares the injury potential of assaults with a 0.5-l beer bottle and a 0.33-l Coke bottle, both made of glass. The research team hit 30 used empty 0.5-l beer bottles and 20 used empty 0.33-l Coke bottles manually on an aluminum dummy skull set on a force measuring plate, using acrylic and pork rind as a scalp surrogate. There was no significant difference in fracture threshold and energy transfer between the examined beer and Coke bottles. Both glass bottles are able to cause fractures to the facial bones while cranial bone fractures are primarily not to be expected. Blows with a 0.5-l beer bottle or with a 0.33-l Coke bottle to the head can transfer up to 1.255 N and thus are able to cause severe blunt as well as sharp trauma injuries.

No stress--no whiplash? Prevalence of "whiplash" symptoms following exposure to a placebo rear-end collision.

Volunteer studies of experimental, low-velocity rear-end collisions have shown a percentage of subjects to report short-lived symptoms, but the cause of these symptoms remains unknown. It is unclear whether the symptoms arise from biomechanical stress causing injury or from psychological stress causing symptom expectation and anxiety. Similarly, the cause of symptoms remains obscure in virtually all "whiplash" patients because it is impossible to identify acute pathology in many cases. In this study subjects were exposed to placebo collisions that almost completely lacked biomechanical stress. It was highly probable that if the symptoms reported following low-velocity collisions were not due to injury but to other factors (including misattribution of symptoms from other sources), then the proportion of subjects reporting symptoms would be similiar to that reported for volunteers in true (experimental) low-velocity, rear-end collisions. A total of 51 volunteers (33 males and 18 females, mean age 32.4 years) were recruited through local newspaper advertisements. An experimental set-up for a placebo collision was constructed using two standard European cars. At time T0, prior to the placebo collision, a history and physical examination was performed, including a psychological analysis (Freiburger Personality Inventory). A symptom history and physical examination were also performed at time T1, immediately after the placebo collision, and the subjects completed symptom questionnaires 3 days (time T2) and 4 weeks (time T3) after the placebo collision. Data analysis included a determination of the predictive value of psychological data for the presence of symptoms following exposure to a placebo collision. At time T1, 9 out 51 participants (17.6%) indicated symptoms. Within 3 days (time T2) after the placebo collision, 10 (19.6%) of the subjects had symptoms, and within 4 weeks (time T3) 5 subjects (9.8%) had symptoms. Of the last group, two of the five did not relate these symptoms to the "collision". Subjects who endorsed symptoms at time T1 had significantly higher scores on the psychological scale of psychosomatic disorders (measured at time T0). Subjects endorsing symptoms at time T2 had significantly higher scores on emotional instability. There was also a tendency to higher scores on this sub-scale for subjects with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) at time T3. A discriminant analysis using all four psychological scales from time T0 had a power of 87%, 83% and 92% for correct classification of subjects as asymptomatic times T1, T2 and T3, respectively. Approximately 20% of subjects exposed to placebo, low-velocity rear-end collisions will thus indicate WAD, even though no biochemical potential for injury exists. Certain psychological profiles place an individual at higher risk for phenomenon.

[Effectiveness of the back school. A review of the results of evidence-based evaluation]. / Effektivität der Rückenschule. Ein Uberblick uber die Ergebnisse der evidenz-basierten Evaluation.

Back schools are high frequency-low cost interventions. Their effectiveness has lately been regarded with skepticism. The variety of back school programs makes an over-all evaluation difficult. The number of evaluative publications has increased dramatically during the last 10 years, including 18 randomized controlled trials. Results of these studies have been contradictory. The results of two lately published randomized controlled trials, of 18 randomized controlled trials, of five systematic reviews, two publications conducting metaanalyses, and five task forces presenting guidelines for clinical practice are reported. According to the conclusions of the reviews there is limited to strong evidence for the effectiveness of back schools for chronic back pain. The metaanalyses show clear effects for knowledge and behavior change up to 6 months. Three of five task forces recommend back schools for acute pain respectively at worksite. Summarizing the results of the given evidence based recommendations it is concluded that back schools at work sites and back schools with intensive training is effective. There is still need to prove the effectiveness of single elements of the back school programs, of strategies to increase long term effects, the effectiveness for subtypes of patients and the effectiveness of back schools as part of a comprehensive orthopedic pain therapy.

Effectiveness of the back school. A review of the results of evidence- based evaluation.

Back schools are high frequency-low cost interventions. Their effectiveness has lately been regarded with skepticism. The variety of back school programs makes an over-all evaluation difficult. The number of evaluative publications has increased dramatically during the last 10 years, including 18 randomized controlled trials. Results of these studies have been contradictory. The results of two lately published randomized controlled trials, of 18 randomized controlled trials, of five systematic reviews, two publications conducting metaanalyses, and five task forces presenting guidelines for clinical practice are reported. According to the conclusions of the reviews there is limited to strong evidence for the effectiveness of back schools for chronic back pain. The metaanalyses show clear effects for knowledge and behavior change up to 6 months. Three of five task forces recommend back schools for acute pain respectively at worksite. Summarizing the results of the given evidence based recommendations it is concluded that back schools at work sites and back schools with intensive training is effective. There is still need to prove the effectiveness of single elements of the back school programs, of strategies to increase long term effects, the effectiveness for subtypes of patients and the effectiveness of back schools as part of a comprehensive orthopedic pain therapy.